>> greta: the prosecution rested it's case against jody arias. defense lawyers will begin presenting their case january 29th. what is their strategy? >> jody arias killed. there is no question about it. the million dollar question is what would have forced her to do it? and throughout this trial you will hear that she was indeed forced. >> greta: arias is claiming self-defense, claiming alexander psychologically and sexually abused arias. but self-defense was the third version of what happened the night that have brutal shower

murder. the dpeens has a long road ahead. we're going to keep you updated tlult throughout the trial. make sure you go gretawire.com. let us know what you thought about this special edition of on the record. good night from washington. tv. "fox news sunday" is next. i'm shannon bream. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. the pentagon lifts the ban on women in combat. >> as the gender barrier falls, there is still questions whether women should serve in the infantry and special operations. we'll hear from two retired officers. air force colonel, the first female u.s. combat pilot. and army lieutenant general jerry boykin. with the pageantry over now comes the hard part dealing with the nation's big issues.

from debt to gun violence to getting america back to work, is congress ready to act? we'll get the latest from two top senators, democrat dick durbin and republican bob corker. plus, the president uses his inaugural address to push a liberal agenda. we'll ask our sunday panel how mr. obama is likely to do in his second term. and our power player of the week. a student of the ways president's exercise power. all right now on funds. all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. american women in the military have served on the frontlines for years. and 152 have been killed in iraq and afghanistan. but when defense secretary panetta lifted the ban on women in combat his decision this week drew strong praise and sharp criticism. we have is brought together could distinguished veterans to discuss the issue.

colonel martha mcsally was the nation's first demail combat pie -- are te female cot and joins us from tucson. lieutenant general jerry boykin was the former head of the u.s. special forces command. welcome to "fox news sunday." i have been looking forward to this discussion. >> thank you very much, chris. >> so have i. thanks for having us on. >> chris: here is how defense secretary panetta explained his decision this week. take a look. >> not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. but everyone is entitled to a chance. >> chris: general boykin you dismissed this as another case of the pentagon using the milita social experiment. i would like you to tell colonel mcsally directly knowing her background. look into the camera and tell her why she is unfit to serve

in combat? >> chris, you need to frame this thing correctly. not an issue of women in combat. women are in combat already and have been sense 9/11. in fact, prior to that. colonel mcsally is a great example of how women can be used effectively in combat. my issue here is mixing the genders in infantry units, armor units and special forces units is not a positive. there are many distracters there which puts a burden on the small unit combat leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness. >> chris: colonel mcsally those are the two basic arguments. you are a combat pilot but arge onsil limations, rticularly to servining the infant and also this question of a distractiorin dung operations when you are in closquarters there iso

privacy and rugged living conditions. look in your camera and tll genel boykin why he is wrong? >> l me just say tt i reale that flying combat aircraftnd bying on the ground in combat are two vy different mission e salawed arguments were used against allowingwon to fly in combat and now allowing women to in ground combat glikeeral bykin has sd. these arflawed arguments. we need to treat people like individuals. hicht are t capabilitieshe t includes physical strength courage, appls tay and leadership. we are a country that sets stanrds and allows peopl to compe as individuals. d if they bri the better nso should be able to compete on l grounds. i'not talking abt changing standards. i'm talking about allowing people to be considere for what they bring to fight. the current policyasialcy

sa -- >> chris: if i can follow up on that. thmarine infantry officer corpsfferedast september a courininomen ok part and both dropped out and said carrying the 70-d backpacks can meet t samphical standardfor gund combat th men do? look,e know t bell cve of men is strong tn the bell curve of women b overla d so the crrent poliy basically says th no wom can meet the standard and therefore all men can. that isng genal boin peewee he per man is be ia and venus williamsre going to meet the standar people like individuals. one element of needing to be in ground combat but all of the other qualities like aptitude anscipline and

leadership are what women bring to the fight. e pentagon estimated 75% of 17 to 24-year-olds are not even 5%ilitary. to be in the of the population. 15% go on to college. we need to recruit from a hundred percent of the population in order to make sure we have the most effective fighting force. >> chris: let me bring general boykin in here. i like the analogy of the williams sisters versus peewee herman and i would point out that colonel mcsally competed in the military division men and women in hawaii and she won. what does that say? clearly some women can meet the standard? >> first of all, some women can meet the standard. i think there will be few but some can. that is not the issue you that the raised initially what i raised is the issue the mixing the genders in the combat units where there is no privacy, where they are out on extended operations and there is no opportunity for people to have any privacy whatsoever.

as a man who has been there and a man who has some experience in those kinds of units, i certainly don't want to be in that environment with a female because it is degrading and humiliating enough to do your personal hygiene and the other normal functions among your teammates. >> chris: let me ask colonel mcsally to respond to that. >> sure. again, right now we are in a 360-degree battlefield and women andmen are serving together out there in combat. privacy is a red herring. you can figure out the issue as long as you have the most capable qualified force. that should be no reason for the exclusionary policies. some of the closest allies have figured this out for many years. canada is the best example. they had women fully integrated into the combat forces and have taken serious casualties in afghanistan. women are out there on the frontlines leading men in combat and doing a fantastic job of it. so this privacy issue or men and women being next to each

other it is the same issue we have seen which is a myth really and it is not a show stopper to make sure we have the most capable qualified fighting source. >> chris: this edges into the next area i wanted to get into which is the issue of sexual assault. the department of veterans affairs did a study and they found that 22.8% almost a quarter of military women deployed to iraq and afghanistan reported they were sexually assaulted. but general boykin, the chairman of the joint chiefs, general dempsey said he felt that the ban in the military contributed to the assaults. take a look at what he said? >> when you have one part of the population that is did he he significant nateed as warriors and another part that is designated as something else, i think that disparity begins to establish a psychology that in some cases led to that environment. >> chris: is general dempsey

wrong? >> well, i don't agree with general dempsey on this issue. and, first of all, we need to recognize that is bad people doing bad things but it happens all over. i would also like to go back to colonel mcsally's last comment. there is a big difference in flying a combat mission and going back to a hangar where there are facilities and being on a 30 day operation where you are in very close quarters with your teammates and so this is not a specious argument and i can tell you that having been there this is something that needs to be considered. also consider, chris, where does this go? do we draft women? do we release them from the service for pregnancy? where does this ultimately go? they are in combat and they he should be in combat and we should find opportunities just like with colonel mcsally for them to serve in combat. i'm talking about infantry, armor, special forces, those kinds of units where i object. >> chris: we will get to the

issue of the draft in a minute because it is a legitimate issue a lot of people raised. colonel mcsally does the kind of second-class status, i don't mean to call you second-class but the idea that women are not allowed in combat roles, as general dempsey said men are warriors and women are something else. do you think that contributed to the environment in which sectional way sault happens? >> when you have an environment where women are treated as second-class warriors, can do everything but not quite the elite dog not out there doing what really brings about promotions and leadership positions and really what matters in the military the movie theater, you create in sub conscious feeling that women are not quite equal with the men. that adds to the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault. a complex issue. we need to address it to find those that are the criminals

and route them out of the military. you don't avoid the issue by keeping women out of the units because if those men are assaulters they will assault women and others they come into contact to. this change is absolutely necessary and the restrictions in the past have actually added to the problem. >> chris: colonel mcsalary, general boykin brought up the idea of the draft and the supreme court said the reason women should not be subjected to the draft is because they are not combat ready. if you are going to lift this ban and it has now been lifted and if we should have to go back to the draft in a military emergency, should women take their place with men in the draft? >> well, i know some really smart people who would argue that maybe we shouldn't even be having a selective service system in the first place but given the fact that we do and that we have tied citizenship with the obligation to be ready defend the country in whatever capacity needed in an emergency equal equals equal. i do believe that men and women

at age 18 should be registering because if the country needs you they will need you for all of the capabilities in the military. combat and noncombat and specialties. i have no problem with if we are tying citizen obligation to the readiness to defend that goes across the board. >> chris: so general boykin s that okay with you you if we have and now it is a matter of fact that the ban on women in combat ground combat has been lifted, women in the draft. >> i think you have no option. i think you will have to have women register with selective service and obviously be eligible for the draft. i don't think you can do it any other way. >> chris: do you a problem with that? >> i don't want my daughters registering for the draft and i would like for them to have more of a choice than a man would have in a national crisis. >> chris: i just want to end this with one final statistic. and colonel mcsally kind of brought this up talking about the fact that women are not in combat roles has hurt the

representation, their ability to rise-through the ranks. 74,000 women in the army. 19 generals. that is point 026%. doesn't the practical effect of not allowing women to serve on the ground in combat hurt their ability to rise through the ranks, general, to become a general like yourself? >> that's right. i think it does, chris. i think it clearly does. but keep in mind the mission of the military is to fight and win wars. every decision that is made today is should be made in the interest of military readiness. and while i again i say women are in combat and women need to be given opportunities to serve in other combat roles. i'm no longer against that. there was a time when i was. also think that we have to consider the second and third order effects and look at this wholistically. >> chris: in 30 seconds, colonel mcsally, what do you want to say? >> it isn't about riding to leadership. it is about military

effectiveness. the 230,000 positions previously closed only a fraction are special forces and infantry. the rest a whole variety of other jobs closed to women. if we want the most effective fighting force we need to pick the most qualified capable man for the job even if it is a woman. this is about military effectiveness and allowing us to recruit the most capable and qualified force. >> chris: i want to thank you both. thank you you so much for coming in today and thank you both of you for your service to our nation. >> thank you. key senatorsnext, two ski on president obama's a.m. byion

>> chris: just four days after president obama's triumphant second inaugural a federal court handed the white house a major setback. here to discuss it all are two congressional leaders. from illinois, dick durbin and bob corker. senators, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> yes, sir. >> chris: the federal appeals court ruled friday that president obama violated the constitution when made three invalid appointments to the national labor relations board. senator corker you and 41 of our senate colleagues joined in support of the lawsuit. what do you think the ruling says about presidential overreach both in the appointments and also in all of the executive actions he has been taking recently? >> well, it was a huge victory for anybody who believes in balance of power and the constitution and i could not have been more excited. i came up off the floor when i saw that that had happened and hopefully the supreme court will uphold it.

there is no question what happened with the nlrb and the consumer financial protection head that was abusive and thankfully the district court here in washington struck it down and hopefully the supreme court will uphold it. >> chris: abusive in what way? >> my gosh, these people just never had a hearing. so i mean they came forth. they never had a hearing. and he confirmed them. or he appointed them. it was one of the most abusive cases ever. obviously this ruling is very far reaching and actually knocks down decades of action by presidents as far as common practice does but i'm thankful it came forth and hopefully we can get back to more of a balance of power. through the years the executive branch obviously has been gaining tremendous power. >> chris: do you think and i will bring in senator durbin in a second. do you think this invalidates the ruling made in the last year with the three now invalid

appointments and what about the actions taken by the consumer financial protection bureau. is all of that out the window? >> could well do it. in each case someone might have to challenge the rulings to make them invalid. certainly that is what we said at the time, chris was these people were about going to be working in vain and the rulings that they come forth with are going to be challenged. that turns out to be the case and thankfully for the country there will be a balance of power here. >> chris: senator durbin it was the democrat who came up with the idea in 2007 of the pro forma sessions and gaveling every three days so there wouldn't be a resessions. president bush did not the challenge that and president obama did and that is why the lawsuit was filed. that was presidential overreach? >> let's step into this a little more and ask why did we reach this point? why did the president believe

appointments were so critical. we reached that point because we couldn't go through the orderly process of reviewing nominees and literally voting them up or down. there was a question about how often they could be brought to the floor. how long they would languish on the calendar. what secret hold would apply. whether or not there would ever be a vote and in the frustration the administration said we were elected to govern and whether it is the national labor relations board or whatever they wanted to put people in place to govern. i hope what happened thursday night chris is going to change this. we had a strong bipartisan vote for rules changes and included in the rules changes were changes in the way we treat nominees not only for the courts but for the agencies. let's have a day in court for each one of of them. let's have a hearing and a vote. >> chris: and i want to move on to another subject but just briefly i understand the president's frustration. that doesn't mean he can just rewrite the constitution. >> i work in the congressional branch. the legislative branch of our government. and i am certainly going to

hold up our team model whatever it happens to be whoever the president happens to be but i want to put this in perspective. we have seen this president denied the opportunity to make appointments over and over and over again because one senator happens to hate a particular agency or a particular person. for goodness sakes in fairness give them a hearing and give them a vote and let's get on with it. >> chris: want to respond to that? >> i do think we did something very good thursday night in that we didn't blow the senate up. i would say in the case of the nlrb nominees there was never a hearing. so in that case it was incredibly abusive and again i'm glad the court has struck this down and hopefully we will get back to regular order and doing things the way we should be in the senate. >> chris: let's turn to the president's inaugural agenda for a second term. i think it is fair to say it is a pretty liberal agenda. here is what he said during his address. >> the commitments we make to

each other through medicare and medicaid and social security they do not sap our nation, they strengthen us. they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great. >> chris: senator durbin, the president said that he rejected the -- that americans must choose between caring for our seniors and investing in the new generation but the question i have is who on capitol hill, which republicans are saying that they don't intend to care for our seniors? >> do you recall the last campaign when a man named mitt romney talked about the 47% of people who were takers? those who were living off the government and those are the ones that will support the democrats. this approach was soundly rejected. even by many republicans. what i heard the president say was programs like social security and medicare and medicaid critically important for our future.

and we need to have a bipartisan commitment to make them work. now, bob and i have been in a lot of meetings talking about deficit reduction. i think we need reform in the programs that means that they going to live on to serve future generations. that is the message i took from the president. >> chris: senator corker i would like you to respond to that and also like you to respond to comments that house speaker boehner made this week about the president's attitude towards the republican party injuries let's watch. >> over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration. as they attempt to annihilate the republican party and let me just tell you i do believe that is their goal to just shove us into the dust in the history. >> chris: senator corker do republicans want to gut social security and medicare? does president obama want to destroy the republican party? >> obviously republicans want to make sure the entitlement

programs are here for future generations. right now for every dollar we spend on young people we are spending four dollars on seniors. right now in medicare the average person pays for one third of the cost of the medicare program. now, dick durbin for what it is worth has been one of those people willing sit down and solve that problem and i congratulate him on that. as far as the president's goal of annihilating the republican party. i will say that i was glad to see that the house was unified behind something recently as it relates to the fiscal issues and i think that is a backstop to that. the fact is the one thing the president didn't mention in his speech was the major fiscal issue that our nation faces. it was everything but that and to me that was disheartening. it is the one issue that before anything else we need to put in the rear view mirror to make our country stronger. >> chris: senator durbin you are a member of a bipartisan group of senators which plans to release a blueprint this

week for immigration reform. a couple of questions. are you talking about a comprehensive package or a piece meal approach? and will it include a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals who are already in this country? >> let me tell you, chris, the answer to both questions is, yes. andky tell you that -- i can tell you that sitting in the neatings with three democrats and three republicans working on the immigration issue has been as encouraging as that rules vote on thursday night. we are trying to work our way through some very difficult issues. but we are committed to a prom me hen suv approach to finally in this country have an immigration law that we can live with. we virtually been going for maybe 25 years without a clear statement about immigration policy. that is unacceptable in this nation of immigrants. we are also saying that we are putting as a high priority the unification of families to make sure that families have a chance to come together. i'm glad the dream act is also

an integral part of that. something i worked on for more nan 12 years. >> chris: senator corker from what you heard and i know you are not a member of this group. could yew accept a -- could you accept a plan with a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals already here if it is tied to berchl marks on border security and enforcement? >> i do like the things that marco rubio has been laying out and i did talk to one of the members on my side of the aisle working with dick durbin and he was optimistic last night at adrenia tended. the details -- at a dinner i attended. the details matter. it is at the talking points stage and this needs to be reduced to legislation. the last time this blew up is when it was reduced to legislation. it is my hope we will come up with a bipartisan solution. i think that enforcement has to be a big part of it. but again, i like many of the principles that marco rubio has been laying out. i think he is a member of the group and i look forward to seeing what they produce. >> chris: finally, you are both members of the senate foreign

relations committee which heard from secretary of state clinton this week about the benghazi terror attack. here is the moment that got the most attention. >> we have four dead americans. because of a protest or guys out a walk one night that decided they would kill some americans. what difference does it make? it is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. >> chris: senator durbin, doesn't it make a difference? at any time important to find out whether or not the administration was telling the truth in the days after the attack? >> secretary of state hillary clinton has done an extraordinary job for this country and it will be recognized by history and this was one of her finer moments. step back and take a list. four brave americans died. she called for an independent investigation. they called for dramatic changes. she said i accept full responsibility and we will move forward to make the changes so that all americans working

around the world to represent us are in a safer place. you know, we know what happened here. in the six or eight weeks before the election this became a red flare of an issue but now that that is past what we going to do through secretary clinton's leadership and i hope soon secretary kerry's leadership is make sure that it never happens again. that is the critical mission. >> chris: does it make a difference to use the phrase of secretary clinton whether the administration was telling the truth to the american people in the days after benghazi? >> well, to h he her credit the deception around the benghazi issue did not come from the state department and no doubt emma nateed from susan rice on this program and others on sunday morning the 15th and continued. >> chris: she wasn't acting by herself. >> it was more of a white house political operative deception that was carried out, not from the state department, i do think that senator johnson and secretary clinton were talking

past each other. i understand the point she was making. certainly understand the emotions of the american people who feel like they have been misled and in fact americans were misled in the beginning about what happened around benghazi. >> chris: senator corker and senator durbin, i'm going to have to thieve there. leave this there. thank you both for coming. >> chris: the president issues an inaugural call to arms for his liberal agenda and suffers a big defeat in court. our sunday group breaks it down when we come right back. the capital one cash rewards card

gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her likes 50% more cash, but i have an idea. do you want a princess dress? yes. cupcakes? yes. do you want an etch-a-sketch? yes! do you want 50% more cash? no. you got talent. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet? i usually say that. we cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics. or treat name calling as reasoned debate. we must act.

we must act knowing that our work will be imperfect. >> chris: president obama in his inaugural address dismissing the opposition to him here in washington. it is time for the the sunday group. brit hume fox news senior political analyst. jeff zeleny of the new york times. kimberly strassel from the "wall street journal" and fox news political analyst juan william. before we get to the inaugural and the president's agenda for the second term i want to discuss the very important ruling by the circuit court of appeals here in washington, d.c. on friday that the president violated the constitution when made three invalid their words appointments to the nlrb. brit, how big a deal? >> i think it is a very big deal and i think that it going to be a little hard to overcome if the administration decides to appeal it. two reasons. one is the court basically threw out the appointments to the nlrb on two grounds

principally. one was and this was a ground breaking ruling that only between sessions of congress when congress isn't in session at all. when one ended and awaiting the start of another one could a recess appointment be made. that is counter to practice that has been going on for a very long time and that ground may not be upheld on appeal. the other ground which said that the senate was not actually in recess is i think the one that will be hard to get around. >> chris: because they were having the pro forma sessions every day. >> they were every three days. there have been appointments made when the senate was in recess not between sessions and but the shortest electric of times 13 days. this was a two or three day hiatus. the question comes who gets to decide. >> chris: they said they were

in session. >> i'm sore are the senate was in session. is would gets to decide when one house of the legislature is in session? the president or the legislative body. that is a separation of powers issue and one i think that is likely to be resolved against the president's view here. >> chris: i think it is fair to say the president has been riding high since the reelection. made 23 ekimov ittive actions when it came to the gun control plan and now takes a beating in the court ruling which says that he acted unconstitutionally and invalidates the appointments and could invalidate a year's worth of work by the nlrb and by the consumer financial bureau which its head was appointed at the same time. does this bring barack obama back to earth. >> i think it probably does the and that was going to happen anyway. the first term agenda here is packed with a bunch of things and the constitution says the president has four years but he

has a lot less time to get things done. this brings him down to earth a little bit. what they are are trying to talk about in the west wing is how to prioritize things. all the issues going on and this court ruling surprised everyone and throws a wrench in terms of things what they want to get done. i think he was going to come down to earth anyway and this probably hastened it a bit. >> chris: kim, put this court ruling in the context of the president's inaugural address? we just heard a clip of it and what seems to be a very ambitious agenda and to the degree that he talked about compromise and has talked about compromise since the reelection it is basically on his terms. >> i don't think this brings him down to earth. this is the strategy, executive pow irare and has been since the republicans took back the house. if they want to accomplish anything it has to be via the auspices of the white house. he said i will get it done by

hook or crook. >> chris: and you don't think it slows their jets at all. >> this is how they operated for two years. congress doesn't past the dream act to the president issues an executive order putting it into place. he doesn't necessarily agree with the marijuana laws so the federal drug laws and so they just don't prosecute in court. they don't key fend the defense of marriage act in court. they basically use the executive power and use the nlrb to pass things they can't get the congress to pass. this is what he is going to do over the next two years. with the further ambition of trying to make sure that the republicans lose the house in which case he will have control over congress again. >> chris: juan? >> i think what you are seeing here is a response to political gridlock. what we are talking about in the case that the the court ruled on pepsi-cola bottlers versus their union is that the republicans really do not like the decisions that would come from a democratic appointee on

the national labor relations board and so they were -- they do not want that board to function. now, remember, these agencies have been cre created by congr. they are nonfunctional if you don't have people to run them. you had a minority in the senate and in the house basically conspire to stop the functioning of government agencies. >> chris: isn't that the constitution that balances? >> i think this is a powers issue. because what is going to have to happen the supreme court i think is going to have to rule. is it the legitimate exercise of congressional power. we have seen that presidents, republicans and democrats have exercised recess appointment powers for years. that is nothing new you in this town. the difference here is -- >> if they are in recess. >> the difference is they intentionally created a sham. >> chris: do you know who created the sham?

>> tell me. >> chris: the democrats started it in 2007 with harry reid to block george w. bush. george w. bush never challenged this. >> correct. and in fact, george w. bush's lawyers wrote recently in the newspapers that this is presidential power. the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments. and they are undermining. >> that is really not in dispute. what is in dispute here is whether the senate was actually in recess and the question comes who gets to decide whether the senate is in recess? the senate or the president? >> and i think the oath -- you also have to put this in broader context. >> things got done during that -- >> they weren't in town. they weren't in town. you could not consider a nomination because they weren't here. >> the thing about this, though, put it in broader context. the more interesting aspect of the ruling was them dialing this way, way back and saying in fact if you look at the constitution you can't even if you are a president hold out the recess appointments and then make them finally put them forward when the senate is in

recess. the recess has to happen while the senate is in recess. >> chris: in the little bit of time we have left what do you think of the republican argument and you heard it from the john boehner clip that we played for the senators that this president doesn't just want to beat the republicans and have his way, in some sense he wants to annihilate the republicans and decide the republicans as he said consign them to the dust bin of history. do you see a more aggressive thing here than presidents usually have against the opposition? >> i'm not sure it is more aggressive but it is more aggressive than this president has had. he is trying to break the backs of some republicans. gun control for example. trying to separate the republican unity that has been pretty strong during the first term and appeal some people back. i'm not sure it is anywhere powerful or authoritative than other presidents have done with the opposition. >> chris: he did it also with tax rates. >> he did. he did. >> chris: we have to take a

break here. when we come back, secretary of state clinton has a rare jointt

i just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you because i think hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we had. >> president obama asked me to be secretary of state and i said yes and why did he ask me and why did i say, yes? because we both love our country. >> chris: president obama and hillary clinton in an unusual joint interview as she ends four years as secretary of state. apparently folks the president calls 60 minutes and says i would like to do an interview with hillary clinton. what makes this so unusual is

in his four years as president the only time he sat down with another person for an interview mr. obama is with mrs. obama. so jeff, one, what do you make of it. will the chattering class here in washington think this is a kind of mini endorsement of hillary for 2016 and how unhappy to do you think joe biden will be tonight when 60 minutes goes on the air. >> he was probably sort of listening in. i'm not sure it is any more than just i think this a good for the president her approval rating is very high among women and among others. why not sort of sit down in the forum. the 60 minutes forum has been friendly to him in the first term. i think it is not an endorsement per se but certainly sort of looks like that. we don't know if she is going to are run for president in 2016. leaving her options open. one thing we sha saw this weeke

hill if decides to run her approval rating will go back to what it was before. if she runs for president i think vice president biden will obviously not. a lot of chattering about him is he keeping his options open. he had iowa wans and new hampshire democrats over to his house over is the weekend. think that he is not going to challenge her. if she runs he will not. who knows both may not run. it is just a bit of intrigue. >> chris: kim, why do you think the president and it was his decision. why do you think he wanted to get engaged in this part of an event? >> part of this might have also been to build on mostly cloudy progress on the hill about benghazi. she he went in and the republican ares were fairly unprepared to move her off of the talking points. they built it up for months and

were finally going to get the answers on benghazi. also didn't manage to put benghazi into the broader of the president's meek foreign policy. it was score one for hillary and i think this was an attempt to kind of build on that and move beyond it and talk about hillary clinton's legacy as a whole rather than that event. >> chris: i want to pick up on that, brit. during the hearing what struck me was the republicans were tough on hillary on benghazi. the democrats weren't. both sides kept saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. some of the accomplishment. helped assemble the bombing campaign in libya to topple khadafi. assembled the coalition with the toughest sanctions ever on iran and established diplomatic ties with burma.

>> i think the examples would add up to a case for her competence. they do not add up to a case for greatness. the groundwork on burma had been ton by the previous administration and the administration properly followed through on it. are arabs and israelis closer to peace? how about iran and north korea and the nuclear programs? halted or seriously set back? has the reset with russia which she so famously introduced with the photo op in moscow with the reset button has that led to a new and more cooperative relationship? is there a clinton doctrine that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state. are there major treaties she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion. i think the answer to all of the questions is she has not. those might mark her as a great secretary of state. she has visited 112 countries. her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dig

anified. she does her homework. in gaffes or blunders. i think she has been a capable and hard working secretary of state but the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak. >> chris: juan was hillary clinton a successful secretary of state and how much does benghazi and how much does that tarnish her record? >> i think she has been a very successful secretary of state. it has been impressive to people far and wide. traveled and made the effort big time. i would say contrary to what brit said that when you look back at this era in american history you have to say that our efforts started by the bush administration to promote the democracy agenda, the freedom agenda in the middle east has been carried through. so arab spring took place under hillary clinton's watch and you can see plus or negative in terms of impact democracy has had. this weekend we have seen some of the flare-up in egypt but you have to say that in terms of promoting american ideals of

democracy she has been effective. china and the reset button with russia. she managed those relationships and certainly managed as chris wallace pointed out what happened in libya. managed to build the alliances that president obama wanted. she has not undermined this president. she has been an effective tool for this it white house. he put together a team of rivals and to pick up on jeff's point it has played to the democratic base in terms of women and in terms of bill clinton who became mr. obama's chief surrogate during the last campaign. >> i would simply say that competentexamples of come be conduct in office. you mention libya. how is that working out for us? the weapons in libya that are now in mali? how is that working out for us? about syria? how has the policy there succeed in furthering the cause. >> we ended two wars under her watch, brit. iraq and afghanistan and she has been critical in managing

both of those situations. >> actually, if you think about it, if you think about it, look at the relationship that was required with -- in afghanistan with hamid karzai. who was a key figure if there was one in manageing that relationship? john kerry. >> i think that you are underestimating hillary clinton and president obama. karzai was here just recently -- >> i get that. >> you know, the most -- the most interesting aspect of that hearing actually was barely reported was the fact hillary clinton how aggressive she was in outlining the hawkish foreign policy. kept saying america has to get its act together. america has to lead. we have to confront the growing jihaddist threat in north africa. fine except for that it utterly opposite to the president's policy and foreign policy agenda. either she doesn't believe that and was saying it for her further political prospects or has been utterly rolled by this president and does not have a lot of influence with his

administration. >> chris: benghazi, what difference does it make which was the big line that came out. does that stay with her or foregotten? >> certainly stays with her but four years from now it will be placed in a broader context i think. i think the sound bite will always be with her. she wanted to o be emotional and i think she was effective in the hearings. think of all of the sound bites out there from hillary clinton. that is one of many. and four years from now, you know, who knows. >> chris: what is wrong with us that we are already talking about 2016? thank you, panel. see you next week. check out panel plus where our group picks right up with the discussion on our website fox newssunday .com. we will post the video before noon eastern time. follow us is on twitter @ fox news sunday. up next, our power player of the week.

has been explaining to us for decades how that president turned his plans into law. here is our power player of the week. >> you want to know how political power works in america in the last half of the century study lyndon johnson's life and watching him exercise power is a way to see what a president can really do.

>> chris: robert carol spent almost half his life telling the story of lbj. he is a student of power, how you get it and what you do with it and johnson he says was a genius at both. >> chris: how long did you think it was going to take you? >> i thought about ten years. >> chris: and now we are, what, 36 years into this? >> something like that. >> chris: the breadth and depth of the work is stunning. since 1976 he has written four books. he says he is not a he ended up writing a book about it. >> nobody has ever looked at a stolen election from beginning to end. and said this is what a stolen election is. >> in his latest passage of power tells how johnson

succeeded john kennedy and saved his agenda. >> he takes legislation that kennedy had introduced that was stalled, that really wasn't going to pass civil rights, the tax cut bill, and in an instant johnson gets it moving towards passage. >> thank you very very very much. >> last fall caro took part in the library of congress book festival on the national mall. it's clear he has made johnson come alive for many readers. >> do you like him? >> i don't like him or dislike him. you are in awe of him because you are constantly saying look what he is doing now. >> he got excited talking about johnson's rise to power as we turn to the final book he is writing now about johnson's president and vietnam, his demeanor has suddenly changed. >> the story is going to turn very dark as soon a